You don't know what, if any, evidence President Trump has to back up his extreme claims.

You don't have any idea of the level of classification of said evidence.

And you just implied in your previous statement that the evidence is available and the heads of the Intelligence Committees should "go look it up."

/shrug

Tweets have harmed companies by causing their stock prices to tumble and accompanied civil unrest around the world.

/shrug

However it is you that worshipfully suggested that Mr. Trump has some master plan to smoke out his perceived enemies with a tweet ... so, I'm not sure
why you'd make such a basically asinine statement in return.

Nothing desperate at all...like I said previously....i have time to wait. I would rather see a well presented case against Obama coming out than a
hasty investigation as was done for Hillary and screwed up from the beginning by giving her time to destroy all evidence.

And yes...looking it up. If they have clearance to see it they don't need to request it from the President. That's how classifications work...you have
the clearance you can request it and get it...you don't and you can still request it to make it appear you have some credibility to your job, but you
don't get to see it.

Here is where the House has asked to allow staffers to get clearance in order to better do their job...

So yes...it is as simple as "looking it up" when you have the clearance. And again, the fact these tapping requests exist is not in question. It is
the information within the requests and what was gathered that is.

Obviously the requesting parties don't have the clearance to see them...the whole thing is a political ruse from them. They know they can't see them
unless they are declassified. Declassification may not be possible if there are current investigations affected by these docs.

I still have plenty of time to wait....and still waiting for Obama to bring his lawsuit for slander....

Why wouldn't the President provide proof for his rather extraordinary statement?

Seems like he'd want to get that out of the way quickly and re-establish his validity.

Re establish is validity? Are you saying he is not currently a valid President?
One would think that evidence is being requested from several parties.

Why would you interpret that statement in that way? Does a President stop being a President because he makes an invalid statement?

I am saying that the statement he made is not backed up by anything, and he has provided zero evidence to support what he said at this point. Thus
the validity of what he said is in question.

Why must you always attempt to insert words into or misconstrue what others post? That also weakens your arguments.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.

You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the
water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.

They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.

Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.

Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.

Oh my. You clearly didn't help me out. You just thanked ME for helping YOU understand the obvious.

Are you already trying to spin that now into ANOTHER POINTLESS COMMENT about me?

Could we possibly stay on the topic for once? Please?

Thanks.

I just think when you question the President's validity as you did...

Why wouldn't the President provide proof for his rather extraordinary statement? Seems like he'd want to get that out of the way quickly and
re-establish his validity.

...it's important to give you the chance to clarify.

Are you going to draw this kind of irrelevance out page after page again?

You asked for help, I gave it to you.

What are you trying to argue here?

Ok, fine. That is the last time I help you get out of your ludicrous statements. Next time, I won't offer you the chance for clarification.

You thanked me for my help, which I am glad to give at any time, and now you claim to be helping me.

That's most odd.

Again, what is your argument here? Are you saying something about the topic?

^are you saying something about the topic?

On topic... did you actually respond to the several videos where two reporters have come forward and claimed to be "100% sure" that there were 2 "wire
taps". One FISA request and also a separate and one to monitor trump's server.
I've not heard anyone give 100% assurance on their claim to this point, and they were willing to go on television and be interviewed about it.
If they are right, then Trump's claim of Obama "wire-tapping" his phones would only be false on the basis that he did not say "Obama's
administration"... I think many will understand the major point that he WAS tapped as opposed to the words in the tweet.

Youtube videos by amateur demogogues don't really interest me a lot, UK. I've watched too many of them merely to discover that they're pathetic and
meaningless.

Since you apparently watched them, was there any evidence that President Obama ordered any unlawful surveillance?

I understand that faulty arguments want to make the false equivalency that anything within the scope of any lawful investigations are somehow covered
under Mr. Trump's wild claim, but that just doesn't follow.

Mr. Trump was very clear. Mr. Obama ordered unlawful surveillance on him and his residence.

Youtube videos by amateur demogogues don't really interest me a lot, UK. I've watched too many of them merely to discover that they're pathetic and
meaningless.

Since you apparently watched them, was there any evidence that President Obama ordered any unlawful surveillance?

I understand that faulty arguments want to make the false equivalency that anything within the scope of any lawful investigations are somehow covered
under Mr. Trump's wild claim, but that just doesn't follow.

Mr. Trump was very clear. Mr. Obama ordered unlawful surveillance on him and his residence.

That's either true or not.

You clearly have not watched the video - posted 4 times. These were reporters. Sara Carter, a National Security/War Correspondent in DC and John
Solomon, a journalist and ex editor in chief of the Washington Times.

Your failure to even engage with information that does not support your views undermines your credibility.

As for the use of language, we can take this literally if it suits us. Just like you said that Trump needed to "re-establish his validity", but you
REALLY meant that he had to establish the validity of one argument.

Mr. Trump was very clear. Mr. Obama ordered unlawful surveillance on him and his residence.

That's either true or not.

When will we know the answer... after President Obama testifies? He's the "horse's mouth". Or, are former Presidents shielded by some law from
testifying in criminal cases?

I would hope that there's more evidence in the case than the personal testimony of President Obama.

Don't you?

As far as I know, there's nothing that keeps a President from testifying, but it would also seem to follow that some topics are protected by Executive
Privilege. You might want to direct that to some of our armchair legal experts.

As far as your open-ended question? My feeling is that there probably is no "answer" that President Trump as he has shown he is wont to do, read an
article on Breitbart and reacted on Twitter.

Okay, that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion ... so I'll just say .. good for you!

I'm sure members of Congress asking the President for his "proof" was merely a courtesy. They very likely didn't expect anything in response.

Have fun waiting.

That's just the point. The docs exist. The obviously don't have the clearance to review them. Funny enough, the article I linked to was a request put
in under the Obama administration and directly to this exact situation and they didn't get it. Try reading Obama's edits to the classification EO for
materials and you'll see very specifically how this was covered in order to keep it out of anyone's hands except by the President himself....the edit
happened around the time of the fast and furious program news and the benghazi stuff...perfect timing.

originally posted by: jimmyx
maybe if trump wasn't such a pathological liar, he wouldn't sound so stupid making that claim

While the above may be true, and I agree with...you have to be careful in stating the below as it gives fuel to those who would find what you have to
say with a particular leaning thus rendering your argument invalid to them as, at the core of things, it goes against every American principle and the
legal system itself of Innocence until proven Guilty.

....to me anything that comes out of his mouth, is a lie until the evidence is presented

I've been attempting to correlate most of the staunch Trump supporters with how it feels to attempt an engagement of civil discourse and I think I've
finally made the leap.... I am Fred Gwynne arguing with a slew of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini's

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.